Late last week, dozens of attorneys and experts in international law appealed to United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon to prevent the General Assembly resolution recognizing a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, on the grounds that it violates of international law and contravenes previous United Nations resolutions. Notable among the signatures were those of Dr. Alan Baker, former legal advisor to the Foreign Ministry and former Ambassador to Canada; Dr. Meir Rosenne, also former legal advisor to the Foreign Ministry, former Ambassador to the United States and one of the principal framers of the Camp David accords; Professor Talia Einhorn, Professor Eliav Shochetman, and Legal Forum Attorney Yossi Fuchs who initiated the letter.

Re: The proposed General Assembly resolution to recognize a PalestinianState “within 1967 borders”- an illegal action

We, the undersigned, attorneys from across the world who are involved ingeneral matters of international law, as well as being closely concernedwith the Israeli- Palestinian dispute, appeal to you to use your influenceand authority among the member states of the UN, with a view to preventingthe adoption of the resolution that the Palestinian delegation intends totable at the forthcoming session of the General Assembly, to recognize aPalestinian state “within the 1967 borders”.

By all standards and criteria, such a resolution, if adopted, would be instark violation of all the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians,as well as contravening UN Security Council resolutions 242(1967) and338(1973) and those other resolutions based thereon. Our reasoning is asfollows:

1. The legal basis for the establishment of the State of Israel was theresolution unanimously adopted by the League of Nations in 1922, affirmingthe establishment of a national home for the Jewish People in the historicalarea of the Land of Israel. This included the areas of Judea and Samaria andJerusalem, and close Jewish settlement throughout. This was subsequentlyaffirmed by both houses of the US Congress.

2. Article 80 of the UN Charter determines the continued validity of therights granted to all states or peoples, or already existing internationalinstruments (including those adopted by the League of Nations). Accordinglythe above-noted League resolution remains valid, and the 650,000 Jewspresently resident in the areas of Judea, Samaria and easternJerusalem, reside there legitimately.

3. “The 1967 borders” do not exist, and have never existed. The1949 Armistice Agreements entered into by Israel and its Arabneighbors, establishing the Armistice Demarcation Lines, clearly stated thattheselines “are without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundarylines or to claims of either Party relating thereto”. Accordinglythey cannot be accepted or declared to be the international boundaries of aPalestinian state.

4. UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973)called uponthe parties to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East andspecifically stressed the need to negotiate in order to achieve “secure andrecognized boundaries”.

5. The Palestinian proposal, in attempting to unilaterally change thestatus of the territory and determine the “1967 borders” as its recognizedborders, in addition to running squarely against resolutions 242 and 338,would be a fundamental breach of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian agreement onthe West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in which the parties undertook tonegotiate the issue of borders and not act to change the status of theterritories pending outcome of the permanent status negotiations.

6. The Palestinians entered into the various agreements constituting whatis known as the “Oslo Accords” in the full knowledge thatIsrael’s settlements existed in the areas, and that settlements would be oneof the issues to be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations.Furthermore, the Oslo Accords impose no limitation onIsrael’s settlement activity in those areas that the Palestinians agreedwould continue to be under Israel’s jurisdiction and control pendingthe outcome of the Permanent Status negotiations.

7. While the Interim Agreement was signed by Israel and the PLO, it waswitnessed by the UN together with the EU, the Russian Federation , the US,Egypt and Norway. It is thus inconceivable that such witnesses, includingfirst and foremost the UN, would now give license to a measure in the UNaimed at violating this agreement and undermining major resolutions of theSecurity Council.

8. While the UN has maintained a persistent policy of non-recognition ofIsrael’s sovereignty over Jerusalem pending a negotiated solution, despiteIsrael’s historic rights to the city, it is inconceivable that the UN wouldnow recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, the borders ofwhich would include eastern Jerusalem. This would represent theultimate in hypocrisy, double standards and discrimination, as well as anutter disregard of the rights of Israel and the Jewish People.

9. Such unilateral action by the Palestinians could give rise toreciprocal initiatives in the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) whichcould include proposed legislation to declare Israel’s sovereignty overextensive parts of Judea and Samaria, if and when the Palestinians carry outtheir unilateral action.

Excellency,

It appears to be patently clear to all that the Palestinian exercise, aimedat advancing their political claims, represents a cynical abuse of the UNOrganization and of the members of the General Assembly. Its aim is to by-pass the negotiation process called-for by the Security Council.

Regrettably this abuse of the UN and its integrity, in addition toundermining international law, has the potential to derail the Middle-Eastpeace process.

We trust that you will use your authority to protect the UN and itsintegrity from this abuse, and act to prevent any affirmation or recognitionof this dangerous Palestinian initiative.

Clark Kent and Lois Lane are guest passengers aboard the Columbus – Earth’s first manned space vessel. Shortly after breaking the planet’s atmosphere, they encounter a strange, alien flying saucer. The ship belongs to Brainiac, a self-styled Master of Science. Clark dons a pressure suit and pretends to space-walk back to Earth (supposedly out of fear). However, when he is outside of Lois’ view, he changes into Superman and pushes the Columbus back towards Earth, out of harm’s way.

Superman flies towards Brainiac’s ship, but even his super-strength is not enough to penetrate the villain’s Ultra-Force Shield. From inside the craft, Brainiac uses his Hyper-Ray to steal several Earth cities, including Paris, Rome and NewYork. He shrinks them down to miniature size and places them inside of special bottles on his craft.

Superman comes up with a plan and flies back to Earth. He arrives in Metropolis, just as the city is hit by Brainiac’s Hyper-Ray. Metropolis shrinks in size, and Brainiac places it amongst his collection. Now barely an inch-tall, Superman flies upward pushing the cork out of the top of Metropolis’ bottle. Having eluded the Ultra-Force Shield, he is now safely inside his foe’s ship.

Superman flies around the laboratory analyzing Brainiac’s collection of stolen cities. He learns that he plans on bringing them back to his home world of Colu, where he will then repopulate his lifeless planet.

Superman finds one bottle without its stopper and flies inside. Surprisingly, the city inside the bottle is Kandor – once the capital city of the dead planet, Krypton. As Kandor synthetic environment is powered by an artificial red sun, Superman loses all of his powers. Brainiac finds the bottle and replaces the stopper.

Inside the shrunken city, Superman meets a scientist named Kimda. Kimda provides Superman with a one-man rocket and a pet animal to help him escape from the city. As he blasts through the bottle’s stopper, he learns that Brainiac has now placed himself in suspended animation for the long voyage home. Superman takes control of Brainiac’s Hyper-Ray and restores all of Earth’s cities back to their normal size and geographic location. He is then prepared to use the ray’s final charge on Kandor, but Kimda exits the bottle and activates the Hyper-Ray on Superman. Superman returns to his normal size, and Kimda explains that he could not sacrifice Earth’s greatest hero to remain shrunken for the rest of his life.

Superman gathers together the bottle city of Kandor and leaves Brainiac’s ship. He returns to Earth, where he places the bottle inside of a special vault in his Fortress of Solitude.

Int’l group of some 60 lawyers say UN resolution on statehood would be a violation of all past agreements between Israel, the Palestinians.

An international group of some 60 attorneys, including former Foreign Ministry legal adviser Alan Baker, has appealed to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to prevent a General Assembly resolution on unilateral Palestinian statehood, based on the pre-1967 lines.In a letter dated Wednesday, the attorneys noted that such a resolution would be a violation of all past agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. They added that it would also contravene UN resolutions 242 and 338.

According to the attorneys, the legal basis for the establishment of the state by the League of Nations in 1922 affirmed its presence on territories that included Judea, Samaria, and what is now east Jerusalem. “This was subsequently affirmed by both houses of US Congress,” the attorneys stated. According to Article 80 of the UN Charter, the attorneys said, rights granted to all states or people by already existing international instruments – including those adopted by the League of Nations – remain valid. As a result, the attorneys said, the “650,000 Jews [who] presently reside in the areas of Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem, reside there legitimately.” The 1949 Armistice Agreement stated that these lines “are without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines, or to claims of either Party relating thereto,” the attorneys said. Therefore, they said, “the 1967 borders” do not exist, and have never existed. Past resolutions have called for a negotiated solution to the conflict, the attorneys affirmed. Additionally, attempts to unilaterally change the status of the territory would be a breach of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the attorneys said. When the Palestinians agreed to the Oslo Accords, they knew that the settlements existed and would be one of the issues that would be negotiated during talks for a permanent-status arrangement, the attorneys said. The Olso Accords did not limit settlement activity, they added. By TOVAH LAZAROFF via jpost.com

The recent statements by the European Union’s new foreign relations chief Catherine Ashton criticizing Israel have once again brought international attention to Jerusalem and the settlements. However, little appears to be truly understood about Israel’s rights to what are generally called the “occupied territories” but what really are “disputed territories.”

That’s because the land now known as the West Bank cannot be considered “occupied” in the legal sense of the word as it had not attained recognized sovereignty before Israel’s conquest. Contrary to some beliefs there has never been a Palestinian state, and no other nation has ever established Jerusalem as its capital despite it being under Islamic control for hundreds of years.The name “West Bank” was first used in 1950 by the Jordanians when they annexed the land to differentiate it from the rest of the country, which is on the east bank of the river Jordan. The boundaries of this territory were set only one year before during the armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan that ended the war that began in 1948 when five Arab armies invaded the nascent Jewish State. It was at Jordan’s insistence that the 1949 armistice line became not a recognized international border but only a line separating armies. The Armistice Agreement specifically stated: “No provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.” (Italics added.) This boundary became the famous “Green Line,” so named because the military officials during the armistice talks used a green pen to draw the line on the map.After the Six Day War, when once again Arab armies sought to destroy Israel and the Jewish state subsequently captured the West Bank and other territory, the United Nations sought to create an enduring solution to the conflict. U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 is probably one of the most misunderstood documents in the international arena. While many, especially the Palestinians, push the idea that the document demands that Israel return everything captured over the Green Line, nothing could be further from the truth. The resolution calls for “peace within secure and recognized boundaries,” but nowhere does it mention where those boundaries should be.It is best to understand the intentions of the drafters of the resolution before considering other interpretations. Eugene V. Rostow, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in 1967 and a drafter of the resolution, stated in 1990: “Security Council Resolution 242 and (subsequent U.N. Security Council Resolution) 338… rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to “secure and recognized borders,” which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 194.”Lord Caradon, the British U.N. Ambassador at the time and the resolution’s main drafter who introduced it to the Council, said in 1974 unequivocally that, “It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial.”The U.S. ambassador to the U.N. at the time, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, made the issue even clearer when he stated in 1973 that, “the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal.” This would encompass “less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel’s prior frontiers had proven to be notably insecure.”Even the Soviet delegate to the U.N., Vasily Kuznetsov, who fought against the final text, conceded that the resolution gave Israel the right to “withdraw its forces only to those lines it considers appropriate.”After the war in 1967, when Jews started returning to their historic heartland in the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria, as the territory had been known around the world for 2,000 years until the Jordanians renamed it, the issue of settlements arose. However, Rostow found no legal impediment to Jewish settlement in these territories. He maintained that the original British Mandate of Palestine still applies to the West Bank. He said “the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan River, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors.” There is no internationally binding document pertaining to this territory that has nullified this right of Jewish settlement since.And yet, there is this perception that Israel is occupying stolen land and that the Palestinians are the only party with national, legal and historic rights to it. Not only is this morally and factually incorrect, but the more this narrative is being accepted, the less likely the Palestinians feel the need to come to the negotiating table. Statements like those of Lady Ashton’s are not only incorrect; they push a negotiated solution further away.Mr. Ayalon is the deputy foreign minister of Israel.